Editorial Note

In the bitter verbal battling which rumbled beneath the physical violence of the pre-Revolutionary
years, the heavy advantage rested with the radical press. Led by such pseudonymous
journalistic swordsmen as Samuel Adams, Joseph Hawley, and Joseph Warren, the patriots
skewered { 152 } the administration and the loyal faction without restraint, and almost without opposition.1 Only one tory printer possessed sufficient journalistic skill and courage to brave
the muscular threats with which Sam's Mohawks imposed their ideas of liberty. That
man was John Mein, printer of the Boston Chronicle. It was Mein, for example, who crippled Adams' nonimportation campaign by publishing
authenticated lists of the self-styled “well-disposed” merchants who, having signed
the agreement not to import, were quietly landing and selling forbidden goods.2

Mein's combative nature and his journalistic skill plunged the Boston Chronicle into controversy from the very start of its brief existence. In the first issue,
under a London dateline, Mein ran a sharp attack on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham,
the idol of the Sons of Liberty.3 A violent response by “Americus” appeared in Edes and Gill's Boston Gazette, indirectly accusing Mein, among other things, of Jacobite leanings.4

Storming into the Gazette's office, Mein unsuccessfully demanded that the editors name the author; returning
the next day, he repeated his inquiry and was again repulsed.5 Finally, that evening, Mein met Gill and, by his own admission, caned him.6

Gill sued Mein for £200 at the April 1768 Suffolk Inferior Court, where with Adams
as Gill's counsel the case was tried on 28 April 1768; after a “long hearing” the
jury brought in a verdict for Gill of £130 and costs.7 Both parties appealed. Meanwhile, Mein had been cited criminally for the assault,
and at the April sitting of the Court of Sessions, had been fined forty shillings.8

At the March 1769 Suffolk Superior Court, the civil matter went to trial on Mein's
appeal, with Kent and Auchmuty defending Mein, while Otis and Adams (whose minutes
appear below) represented Gill. This time Gill won again, but the verdict was reduced
to £75 and costs. A motion for a new trial was made in Mein's behalf, but later withdrawn.9

From the state of Adams' minutes, it seems probable that he opened for the plaintiff
and was followed by Kent for the defendant. Plaintiff's evidence then went in, but
defendant did not introduce any. Auchmuty closed for defendant, and Otis for plaintiff.

Although Mein's plea had traversed (denied) the assault, and had not attempted to
justify it, the Adams minutes suggest that Mein conceded the striking but sought to
minimize the damages by arguing provocation.

3. “It is confidently reported that the E. of C—'s gout is only political, and that notwithstanding
his late indisposition he will soon appear on the scene of action and struggle hard
to guide the reins of government, but having lost the confidence of the people, whom
he has deceived by his contradictions and changes, and never having been a favorite
with the nobility, whom he always affected to dispise, he will while he exists be
considered by every disinterested man as a miserable monument of wrecked ambition.”
Boston Chronicle, 21 Dec. 1767, p. 5, col. 1. In the same piece, the Marquis of Rockingham received
praise for having “quieted the commotions which shook the state by the repeal of the
American Stamp Act; while he preserved the constitution in full vigour by the act
for securing the dependence of the colonies.”

4. “When I read the Proposals, for publishing the Boston Chronicle, I tho't on the Plan
with Satisfaction, hoping thereby much good would accrue to America in general, and
to this province in particular; with Pleasure I also noted the judicious Advice given
Messi'rs Mein and Fleeming by their Friends of Taste. It runs thus:

“'We suppose you intend to study your own Interest; if you would do it effectually,
be of no Party, publish and propagate with the greatest Industry whatever may promote
the general Good. Be Independent—Your Interest is intimately connected with this noble
Virtue—If you depart from this, you must sink from the Esteem of the Publick, to the
partial Praise of a Party, who, when their Purposes is serv'd or defeated, may perhaps
desert you, and then how can you expect that those whom you have revil'd will support
you'—To which at that Time they answer'd.—'Whenever any Dispute claims general Attention,
the Arguments on both Sides shall be laid before the Publick with the utmost Impartiality.'

“But to the Surprize of many, how are they fallen off from their own Purposes, and
the excellent Caution of their Benefactors—Instead of giving impartial Accounts concerning
Affairs at Home, and the unhappy Disputes lately arisen between the greatest Men of
the Nation; they have made Choice of, or printed under Guise of being taken from the
London Papers, the most infamous and reproachful Invectives, that ever was invented
against the worst of Traitors to their King and Country, and who are these that are
thus censur'd? Why, men held in the highest esteem and veneration in the British Parliament.
Patriots and Friends and Deliverers of America from Oppression. He who nobly vindicated
her Cause, almost against the whole Senate, who cast behind him all Lucre of Gain,
when it came in Competition with the Good of his Country, and sacrific'd his Family-Connections
and Interest to the publick Welfare. He that through real Infirmities hardly stood,
(not to cover his politic Schemes and Ambition as his Enemies would insinuate) but
stood though tottering, and in the Cause of Liberty made that heroic Speech before
the august House of Commons, in Opposition to the Stamp-Act, sufficient to eternize
his Fame, and ought to be written in Letters of Gold to perpetuate his Memory. Could
the Sons of America be ingrateful, or countenance the greatest Falsities, rais'd only
to prejudice their best Friends and Benefactors—God forbid! Let that Dishonor stain
with the blackest Infamy the Jacobite Party—And though Invectives should be daily
thrown out, let us keep our Integrity to the Confusion of our Enemies; who, for a
long Time have exerted their Power to shake the Props of our Constitution, and bring
a free people into Bondage, thereby to satisfy their more than common Avarice, &c.”
Boston Gazette, 18 Jan. 1768, p. 1, col. 3.

Benjamin Edes (1732–1803) and John Gill (d. 1785) had been partners since 1755. Isaiah Thomas, The History of Printing in America, 1:136–140 (Worcester, 2d edn., 1874). “Gill was a sound whig, but did not possess
the political energy of his partner. He was industrious, constantly in the printing
house, and there worked at case or press as occasion required.” Id. at 140.

“In consequence of a piece signed Americus, published in the last Monday's Gazette, Mr. Mein came to our office between 4 and
5 o'clock the same afternoon, and there being a number of persons present, he desired
to be spoke with in private, accordingly I withdrew with him to another room—when
he said, I suppose you know what I am come about. I told him I did not. Well then,
said he, I am come to demand the author of the piece you printed against me; and if
you will not tell me who he is, I shall look upon you as the author, and the affair
shall be decided in three minutes. In reply to which I said, Mr. Mein, above all persons
in the world, I should not have thought a Printer would have ask'd such an impertinent,
improper question; and told him that we never divulg'd authors; but if he would call
on the morrow between 9 and 10 o'clock, being then very busy, I would let him know
whether I would tell the author or not,—and added,—if we have transgress'd the law,
it is open, and there he might seek satisfaction. He said he should not concern himself
with the law, nor enter into any dispute; but if I did not tell the author, he should
look upon us as the authors, and repeated it, the affair should be settled in three
minutes. I then ask'd him, if what he said with regard to settling the affair in three
minutes, was meant as a challenge or threat? which he declin'd answering, but said
he would call at the time appointed, and then departed.

“Accordingly the next morning, I was at the office precisely at 9 o'clock, where I
found Mr. Mein, who immediately after my entrance, and saying your servant, ask'd
whether I would tell him the author of the above piece or no. I told him I would not.
He then said he should look upon me and Mr. Gill as the authors. I told him he might
and welcome. I then ask'd him what he meant by saying the last night he would settle
the affair in three minutes, whether as a challenge or threat? He answered, if I would
take my hat, and take a walk with him to the southward, he would let me know. I told
him I was not to be at every fellow's beck, and did not regard him. He then said,
I shall look upon you as the author. I reply'd, you may. Your servant, and your servant.
B. Edes.” Boston Gazette, 25 Jan. 1768, p. 2, col. 1.

Suffolk Superior Court, Boston, March 1769

Gill vs. Mein.

News Paper. Jacobite Party.

Kent. Odd that Edes and Gill should desire him to be of no Party. Pitt is a fallen Angell,
and given up by his Partizans, since he dwindled into a Lord. Lost. Lucre of Gain.
Gain of Gain. Did not come from Salem.2 Mem. no Witchcraft in it. Jacobite Party, ungenerous base Insinuations. Kick upon
the A—se.

B. Edes. No Conversation past between Us, about agreeing not to abuse one Another, nor to
mention one Another. The Account I published is true, all but one Word, and I am uncertain
whether I said Fellow, Rascall or Scoundrel.

Anthony Oliver. Do not remember Meins desiring Edes and Gill, not to mention him in their Paper,
Mein said he would get the Printers to meet, so that they might have no Dispute.

Auchmuty. I shall confine myself to one single Object, the Quantum of Damages. To view a Case
of this sort thro the Flames of Passion, must give you a dissagreable Turn against
the Rules of Justice.

The Passions are sometimes, excused by Law. Son killing the Assailant of his father.
The Husband killing An Adulterer, with his Wife, not guilty of Murder, Jury not to
punish in Terrorem. Feeling, &c. Tendency to take away his Bread by publishing that
a Man publishes Falsities. Sporting and wantoning with Characters. Not from Man to
Man, but scattered thro whole Countries. Have not been so civil as to [give?] his Name. If Printers will not tell the Author they must be treated as the Authors
themselves.

Auchmuty. Uncandid and uncivil, not to tell the Author. An Indication of some little Guilt,
in the Mind of Mr. Gill when he desired Witnesses beforehand, to take Notice if Mr.
Mein should Assault him.

Virulence of Representation, high Colouring Rather that Mr. Adams has given it in
Opening.

“But how are they fallen off,” &c. This is to catch and byass the Reader.

Accuse Mein of taking out of “Choice ... the most infamous and reproachfull Invectives”
vs. the Patron of the Country. By his Profession depends vastly upon the public Smiles.
The Insult vastly greater, upon Us, than upon Gill.

Encomiums and Panegyricks upon Mr. Pit or the Person alluded to. 1st to be guilty
of infamous Lying, and for no other End but to abuse the “best Friends and Benefactors”
of the Country. A Lyar, a Traytor, and a Jacobite. Assassin, Ruffian, Spaniards Sticking
and Stabbing.3 { 156 } Henshaw and Tyng.4 Lye, the high Provocation. If I was to call Assassin, and Ruffian, I would in some
other Place. A Man must be made of Oakum, not to feel Cutting, and tearing Characters.
It is one of the greatest inconveniences, and may be attended with public Mischief.

Otis. Weight and Bulk of the Stick. Observations a cool deliberate Action. No sudden Heat,
or Ruffle of Passion. Went once and twice to the office, and took an Opportunity afterwards
to beat. Gill pretends not to be a Boxer, Bruizer, Man of the sword or any Prowess
whatever. I would not engage Mein, but I would beat 2 of Gill.

He was assaulted for carrying on a Paper, in the Course [of] his Business. No Man I think ought to publish an Opinion that he is not able nor
willing to defend.

Mr. Cooke5 who lived and died in the Service of the Town whose last Words expressed Wishes for
our Welfare, and Fears of the very Things that are now coming upon Us.

Chaind between two Posts. Odd Idea of Liberty of the Press.6 A Fashion to raise a vast Outcry vs. this Paper. Scurrillity of Grandees. Dream or
Vision, of a mutual Compact between Mein and Gill.

Little nibbling quibbling Decisions in our Books about Libells and Actions of Defamation.8 All these decisions cannot make the Words “leave these Things to the Jacobite Party”
applicable to Mein.9

Interlard and interlace with Innuendo's.

1. In JA's hand. Original not found, but a photostat of the MS, originally in private hands, is preserved in MHi:Photostat Coll. under date of 1768. Quotation marks supplied by the editors. See
note 4 above.

2. A paper in Mein's hand in 3 Bernard Papers 45, 46, MH, explains this allusion: “Jemmy [Otis] is fond of dating his pieces from Salem, being
the town where he has the fewest Adherents. And he is suspected from good Authority
of being the author of the abusive piece in Edes & Gill against me when our Chronicle
was first published, which obliged me to call on the Printers, and on their refusal
to name the Authors to ask them one after another to take a short Walk; and on their
declining it to cane the first of them I mett which has already cost me about £100
St.” On the resistance of Salem to the nonimportation agreement, see Miller, Sam Adams 222.

“The Freedom of the PRESS has been deservedly esteemed an important Branch of our
Liberty. We hold it dear, and look on all those as our Enemies who endeavour to deprive us
of it. The Dispute therefore between Messieurs Gill and Mein, cannot be looked upon
barely as a Dispute between two private Persons, but is of the highest Importance
to the Community. If we suffer the Printers to be abused, for resolutely maintaining
the Freedom of the Press, without discovering our just Resentment against those who
endeavour to force them from their Duty, we shall soon find the Press shut against
us—For it cannot be expected that one or two Men who will be subject to the Malice
of the publick Enemies, bear to be bruised, and run the Hazard of being assassinated,
if the Public, whose Cause they are fighting do not zealously patronize their Cause.
The People in this Province, and this Town in particular, must for the foregoing Reasons,
be justified in their general Disapprobation of, and Disgust to Mr. Mein, for his
late Spaniard-like Attempt on Mr. Gill, and in him, upon the Freedom of the Press.”
Boston Gazette, 1 Feb. 1768, p. 2, col. 2.

5. Elisha Cooke (1678–1737), “the masterly hand from School Street,” politician and court clerk, of “a fixt enmity
to all Kingly Governments,” had led the fight against the royal prerogative in the
1720's. He even sailed to England to argue the cause before the Privy Council. DAB. Ironically, a transcript of the Privy Council proceedings had appeared in the Boston Chronicle, 11 Jan. 1768, p. 33, cols. 1–3. Cooke was the father of Middlecott Cooke (1705–1771), clerk of the Suffolk Inferior Court. See vol. 2:248–249, notes 4, 5, and 7, below.

6. “Otis at my trial for caning Gill, bandied about this Liberty of the Press as the
Salvation of America, and said, that in beating him I had endeavoured to shutt up
that great Source of freedom.” Mein, “A Key to a Certain Publication,” 3 Bernard Papers 45, 47, MH.

9. The words are apparently Otis' paraphrase for “Let that Dishonor [i.e. falsities and prejudice of friends] stain with the blackest Infamy the Jacobite Party,” from the Americus letter, note 4 above.